Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:47:32.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Translanguaging, Translinguality, and Labor

from Part III - Critical Pedagogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2024

Sender Dovchin
Affiliation:
Curtin University, Perth
Rhonda Oliver
Affiliation:
Curtin University, Perth
Li Wei
Affiliation:
Institute of Education, University of London
Get access

Summary

Much translanguaging and translinguality scholarship focuses on defending and celebrating recognizable forms of language difference – e.g., “Chinglish” – as creativity and agency by the socioeconomically precarious manifesting a micropolitics of resistance. This focus obscures the concrete labour of all utterances, whether deemed conventional or not, by all language users, whether “native” or not, contributing to maintaining and revising language as practice, and, hence, obscures the dependence of dominant culture’s continuity on such labor and, hence, its precarity. Samples from the assigned writing of a bilingual (French/English) student attending a required US undergraduate writing course are shown to exhibit a mix of conventional and unconventional linguistic forms and, more importantly, writerly agency in the writing’s manifestation of criticality toward dominant views of first-year undergraduate writing students as mere recipients of others’ knowledge and its deft deployment of language to produce knowledge. Shifting to a focus on language users’ contribution of their labor to maintaining and revising language and knowledge can bring out the agency of all utterances, the status of criticality and creativity as the norm of language use, the emergent character of language, and, thus, the precarity of dominant culture.

Type
Chapter
Information
Translingual Practices
Playfulness and Precariousness
, pp. 182 - 196
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anhoury, G. (ed.) (2018). Savoir, penser, rêver: Les leçons de vie de 12 grands scientifiques. Paris, Flammarion.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2013). Complexity, accent, and conviviality. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 613–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvet, L-J. (2006). Toward an Ecology of World Languages. Trans. A. Brown. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press.Google Scholar
Conference on College Composition and Communication. (1974). Students’ Right to Their Own Language. Special Issue, College Composition and Communication, 25. National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). The End of Capitalism (as we Knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Glissant, É. (1997). For opacity. In Glissant, É., Poetics of Relation (pp. 188–94). Trans. Betsy Wing. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horner, B. (1992). Rethinking the “sociality” of error: Teaching editing as negotiation. Rhetoric Review, 11, 172–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horner, B. (2022). Student writing. In Moe, P. and Waite, S. (eds.), Inventing the Discipline: Student Work in Composition Studies (n.p.). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Horner, B., & Alvarez, S. (2019). Defining translinguality. Literacy in Composition Studies, 7(2), 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (2008). Contrepont. In Zarate, G., Lévy, D., and Kramsch, C. (eds.), Précis du plurilinguisme et du pluriculturalisme, (pp. 319–23). Paris, Éditions des archives contemporaines.Google Scholar
Lees, E. (1987). Proofreading as reading, errors as embarrassments. In Enos, T. (ed.), A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers (pp. 216–30). New York, Random.Google Scholar
Lees, E. (1989). “The exceptable way of the society”: Stanley Fish’s theory of reading and the task of the teacher of editing. In Donahue, P. and Quandhal, E. (eds.), Reclaiming Pedagogy: The Rhetoric of the Classroom (pp. 144–63). Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 930.Google Scholar
Lu, M-Z. (1994). Professing multiculturalism: The politics of style in the contact zone. College Composition and Communication, 45(4), 442–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, M-Z. (2009). Metaphors matter: Transcultural literacy. JAC, 29(1–2), 285–93.Google Scholar
Lu, M-Z., & Horner, B. (2013). Translingual literacy, language difference, and matters of agency. College English, 75(6), 582607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2005). Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2(3), 137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, K. (1976). Capital, I: A Critique of Political Economy. Trans. Ben Fowkes. New York, Vintage.Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (2014). The lure of translingual writing. PMLA, 129(3), 478–83.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. (2006). Material knowing: The scaffolding of human knowledgeability. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 460–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. R. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a Local Practice. London, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: Theory, History, Practice. New York & London, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reagan, T. (2004). Objectification, positivism and language studies: A reconsideration. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 1(1), 4160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trask, H-K. (1987). Notes from a native daughter. In Martin, C. (ed.), The American Indian and the Problem of History, (pp. 171–9). New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vance, J. (2009). Code-meshing meshed codes: Some complications and possibilities. JAC, 29(1–2), 281–4.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1981). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 152–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and Literature. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (1980). Problems in Materialism and Culture. London, Verso.Google Scholar
Young, V. A. (2009). “Nah, we straight”: An argument against code switching. JAC, 29(1–2), 4976.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×